LEADERSHIP BY TERROR 187vidual judgment and behavior can be infl uenced by the forces of group
dynamics. People in a group typically do not feel responsible for the
decisions made by the collective, and they are reluctant to question
the appropriateness of any given decision. An unquestioning belief in
the righteousness of the group ’ s actions allows individuals to overlook,
support, and rationalize atrocious acts.
The Process of Dehumanization
Groupthink is one way of explaining regressive, violent behavior pat-
terns. Used in conjunction with dehumanization of the ‘ other, ’ group-
think is a formidable weapon in the despot ’ s arsenal. Dehumanizing the
enemy paves the way for leadership by terror, because it allows ordinarily
humane people to become active participants in the regime ’ s atrocious
acts (Erikson, 1963 ; Des Pres, 1976 ). This complex psychological process,
which combines defenses such as denial, repression, depersonalization,
isolation of affect, and compartmentalization (i.e., disconnecting related
mental representations and walling them off from each other), facilitates
the use of terror. To perceive another person as human requires empathic
or vicarious reactions based on perceived similarity. Dehumanization
shuts off empathy by implying that the victims are not individuals in
their own right. The argument is made that these people are not like
us — people with feelings, hopes, fantasies, and concerns. Instead, they
are subhumans or demonic forces bent on destroying what the perpetra-
tors hold dear. Something that evil clearly requires different treatment
and unusual methods. Any atrocity that addresses the problem is permit-
ted. Defenses such as these help bypass the moral inhibition against
killing. When the enemy is a subhuman or non - human — an inanimate
object, as it were — its destruction need not be hindered by the restraints
of conscience.
As the Milgram experiment demonstrated, people are eager to please
those in authority. Psychologists talk of the ‘ idealizing transference ’ and
submission to an overpowering, uncompromising force, but what it
comes down to is this: when we please the leader, we feel a sense of
oneness with him or her (Kohut, 1971, 1985 ; Kets de Vries, 1993 ). There
is an illusory merger between leader and led that allows underlings to
feel a temporary sense of omnipotence. For a moment, they know what
it is to have the power of the leader. They feel absolved of any moral
responsibility — that lies with the leader — and they feel bonded with
both the leader and the other group members by their shared action,
even if that action is cruel and deadly. When the leader is a despot, the